EDAD 5373: The Establishment Clause: Vouchers and School Choice

The Establishment Clause: Vouchers and School Choice

The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution sets boundaries for the exercise of religion and the government’s infringement upon the practice of it.  While the Constitution remains vague regarding the specifics of these boundaries, the First Amendment makes it clear that the government should limit its intrusion upon how people choose to live out their beliefs when it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I).

While it is apparent that the government cannot establish a religion, it is unclear what the verb “establish” actually means within the context of the Constitution.  For that reason, several court cases have been tried that seek to clarify the ramifications of the First Amendment in various situations.  

One of these situations that has come up for debate in the last couple of decades is the issue of school choice.  School choice “refer[s] to programs and policies that let families use public money to access schools beyond their local option, including private schools” (Durrani, 2025).  Opponents of school choice, otherwise referred to as a school voucher system, often focus on the proposed lack of accountability.  Hugh Shine, a former Texas Representative, once made the statement, “The last thing we need to do is to dismantle a public education system by taking funding away without any real clear accountability in that process” (Greene, 2025).  However, accountability is not the only issue faced by supporters of school choice.  The most problematic question plaguing vouchers leads back to the Establishment Clause.  Is sending tax-supporting funding to religious institutions against the First Amendment separation of church and the state? 

Investigating the First Amendment in light of crucial court decisions can aid educators on both sides of the issue in determining the constitutionality of funding religious institutions with public monies.  This analysis revisits the Supreme Court cases of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) and other historic court decisions, focusing on the interpretation of the Establishment Clause as it relates to vouchers and school choice.  The implications for educational leaders will also be examined through the lens of the National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards created by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA).  These standards outline responsibilities and best practices for building-level and district-level administrators; they include, but are not limited to, educational leaders’ duty to support the “success of every student” and their obligation to ensure “equitable access to educational resources and opportunities” (NPBEA, 2018).

Relevant Statutory and Case Law

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

There are several remarkable court cases that make up our current understanding of law and how that law affects public education.  When the law pertains to the legality of school vouchers in religious schools, one of the most impactful cases is the Supreme Court Case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002).  In this case, the “U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2002, ruled (5–4) that an Ohio school-voucher program did not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment” (Welner, 2024).  Taxpayers in Ohio were opposed to Ohio’s Pilot Scholarship Program that was created in order to give “educational choices to families in any Ohio school district that is under state control” (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).  Parents could choose to receive funds for “tutorial aid” for the students if they remained in public school, or they could receive “tuition aid” for their students if they chose to enroll their children in private institutions (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).

The program was initiated in response to a failing public school system in Cleveland, Ohio; the “Cleveland City School District was placed under state control by a federal district court, which had declared a ‘crisis of magnitude’” (Welner, 2024).  The Pilot Program was established as a result of the underperformance of those schools and was intended to help qualifying students in that district (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).

However, 96% of the students who received funds from the program ended up attending some sort of religious institution.  This led Ohio taxpayers to file suit on the basis that the program was in violation of the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).  A federal district court reached the conclusion that the Pilot Program did violate the First Amendment, and the decision was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Welner, 2024).

The case went to the Supreme Court, and the decision of Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed.  It was determined that the program was not in violation of the First Amendment for the following reasons:

A government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice.  (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002)

The court also emphasized the fact that “the parents in Cleveland had a variety of nonreligious choices, including options among public schools” (Welman, 2024).  For these reasons, it was determined that vouchers in the context of the case of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) were not in violation of the First Amendment.

Aguilar v. Felton (1985)

However, in 1985, the Supreme Court found the city of New York to be in violation of the Establishment Clause when they tried to use “federal funds received under the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to pay the salaries of public school employees who teach in parochial schools in the city” (Aguilar v. Felton, 1985).  Essentially, the program sought to aid disadvantaged students by sending taxpayer-funded public school teachers into the religious schools in order to provide enriched and remedial instruction.  The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the District Courts and declared that the use of taxpayer funds in this instance was unconstitutional and would “inevitably result in the excessive entanglement of church and state” (Aguilar v. Felton, 1985).  The Supreme Court upheld that decision until 1997 when it heard the case of Agostini v. Felton (1997).

Agostini v. Felton (1997)

In that year, the decision of Aguilar v. Felton (1985) was overruled by the decision in the case of Agostini v. Felton (1997).  The Court held that “a federally funded program providing supplemental, remedial instruction to disadvantaged children on a neutral basis is not invalid under the Establishment Clause” (Agostini v. Felton, 1997).  If the instruction provided by the public school teachers was both neutral in respect to religion and secular in purpose, the Court determined that there was not an excessive entanglement between the government and religion, and there was no conflict with the First Amendment (Agostini v. Felton, 1997). 

The Court resolved that “placing full-time government employees on parochial school campuses does not as a matter of law have the impermissible effect of advancing religion through indoctrination” (Agostini v. Felton, 1997).  This case is pivotal in the interpretation of the law as it relates to school choice and school vouchers because in this case, the Court altered its “understanding of the criteria used to assess whether aid to religion has an impermissible effect” (Agostini v. Felton, 1997).  This decision “written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, began a shift in the Court’s interpretation of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state” (Preston, 2024).

Carson v. Makin (2022)

In 2022, parents in Maine filed suit against the state because they claimed that the “‘nonsectarian’ requirement of Maine's tuition assistance program for private secondary schools violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment” (Carson v. Makin).  In the state of Maine, “parents who live in school districts that neither operate a secondary school nor contract with a school in another district” are offered tuition assistance; however, the schools eligible to receive the funds were limited to nonreligious institutions (Carson v. Makin, 2022).  The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the state to limit the distribution of the tuition aid to secular schools, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision; the Court declared that “A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause” (Carson v. Makin, 2022).  

St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (2025)

In a recent case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled on the Oklahoma charter school board’s decision to allow St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to become a charter school in their state.  The Court’s decision asserted that “funding the school violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, the Oklahoma Constitution and a state law governing charter schools” (Weiss, 2025).  The state reasoned that the establishment clause restricted the state and prevented them from using taxpayer money to fund a religious institution; St. Isidore countered by claiming that “the state Supreme Court’s ruling ‘unconstitutionally punished the free exercise of religion by disqualifying the religious from government aid’” (Howe, 2025).  

This case will be tried in April of 2025, and both sides of the issue are anticipating the change the ruling could bring.  While the governor of Oklahoma believes that a ruling in favor of the school would foster an expansion of religious freedoms and liberties, Oklahoma’s attorney general believes that “a judgment in favor of St. Isidore would threaten religious liberty by allowing closer ties between the government and religious organizations” (Russo, 2025).  

The Court will seek to answer two key questions.  Would a taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school create a scenario where the government is promoting or establishing religion?  And, would the state refusing to fund the Catholic charter school because it is considered religious in nature be considered a violation of the “free exercise” portion of the First Amendment?

This case will be heard at a pivotal moment in time as many states are looking to vouchers as a way to aid struggling educational systems.  As of 2024, a number of states were allowing taxpayer funds to go to private and religious schools, and 11 states had universal voucher laws (Walker, 2024).  Arizona is one of those states, and their voucher program “projected to cost $950 million [this] year, $320 million of which is unbudgeted” (Walker, 2024).  With so much money tied up in these programs, it is imperative that educational leaders understand the legal implications of integrating public money and private beliefs.  Students, parents, educators, and taxpayers should all be represented and supported by existing systems and programs currently being considered.  As Texas and other states attempt to implement school choice programs, there is one thing for sure: “St. Isidore is a potential game changer, because it may expand the limits of aid to faith-based schools and their students more than ever before” (Russo, 2025).

Application of Legal Principles and NELP Standards

NELP Standard 2.1

As an educational leader in a public school in Texas, I would “understand and demonstrate the capacity to reflect on, communicate about, and cultivate professional dispositions and norms” by advocating for “equity, fairness, integrity, transparency, trust, [and] collaboration” (NPBEA, 2018).  While the Supreme Court upheld the practice of distributing taxpayer funds to religious schools in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), Agostini v. Felton (1997), and Carson v. Makin (2022), this does not automatically mean that vouchers provide an equal education for all.  In my capacity as a leader in my community, I would communicate clearly the legality of vouchers as well as the necessary changes needed in the current school choice legislation.  Vouchers may legally be used to help pay for students’ education in secular and sectarian schools, so currently the argument that school choice violates the Establishment Clause is not valid. 

However, I would promote fairness and equity in the distribution of these funds.  In order to further transparency in education law, I would make sure that my school and community understood the current voucher proposals in the Texas House of Representatives and the potential harm to public school budgets and programs.  As of right now, public schools would receive $6,380 per student under the new legislation while voucher participants could receive up to $10,893 annually (Edison et al., 2025).

NELP Standard 2.2

Also as an educational leader in Texas, I would “understand and demonstrate the capacity to evaluate and advocate for ethical and legal decisions” (NPBEA, 2018).  Even though I would love to argue that vouchers in Texas would violate the Establishment Clause, it is evident that school choice is not inherently unconstitutional.  When Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) is considered, giving parents and students a choice of schools (including religious ones) is not in conflict with the First Amendment.  Therefore, I would seek out alternative solutions for any setbacks caused by a lack of future funding due to the proposed voucher system.  What can we do in order to create a more equal system?  How can public schools retain more taxpayer monies if the current legislation on school choice is approved?  What are the ethical and legal courses of action public schools can take?  I would seek to evaluate possible avenues that we could pursue as a public institution.

NELP Standard 2.3

In addition, as an educational leader, I would seek to “understand and demonstrate the capacity to model ethical behavior in [my] personal conduct and relationships and to cultivate ethical behavior in others” (NPBEA, 2018).  I believe that, as educators, we should be above reproach.  Everything we do should be ethical, and we should promote ethical behavior in the people that surround us.  In light of the court cases discussed above, it would not be ethical, moral, or right for me to decry vouchers as illegal on the basis of the First Amendment.  Carson v. Makin (2022) actually declared it illegal to not allow nonsectarian institutions the benefit of vouchers in a state where vouchers exist.  This is the easiest argument against the state funding of private institutions, but it is not the ethical defense.  I would model ethical behavior and look for constitutionally-based arguments for giving more support to public schools in this era of school choice.

NELP Standard 6.3

In my current capacity, I am not in charge of hiring, firing, or placing personnel; however, if I were to be given that authority, I would “understand and demonstrate the capacity to develop, implement, and evaluate coordinated, data-informed systems for hiring, retaining, supervising” (NPBEA, 2018).  One difficulty of school choice and the distribution of taxpayer money is the potential decrease in funding for public schools.  Any new hires in a public school will need to fill multiple roles and support the school system in a variety of ways. 

As mentioned in Carson v. Makin (2022), private schools, both religious and secular, do not have to accept all students.  Thus, in a state that favors vouchers, they may carefully chose the students they select and receive tuition assistance for those individuals.  Since some students require more personnel to meet their needs, private schools could potentially avoid the necessity of hiring additional personnel by simply not choosing the students that need extra support.  Public schools, however, are required to admit all students; therefore, their personnel costs may be higher.

Conclusion

The Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution makes it obvious that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). A state cannot favor one religion over another, and it cannot favor the absence of religion over religion.  “The very point of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the government from sponsoring religious activity itself, thereby favoring one religion over another or favoring religion over nonreligion”  (Carson v. Makin, 2022).

Equal opportunity for both secular and religious schools is protected by the First Amendment, and that protection extends to the proposal of school choice and vouchers.  In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), the Supreme Court emphasized that government aid to private, religious schools was constitutional since the schools were selected “wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice.”  

The question of school choice continues to be examined even today.  In the case of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (2025), the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the first religious charter school.  They will decided whether or not “funding the school violates the establishment clause and whether excluding the school from the program violates the free exercise clause” (Weiss, 2025).  However, regardless of what is decided in this upcoming case, the struggle to fund public schools while distributing taxpayer money to charter and private schools will remain.

As an educational leader, I would need to balance the state’s right to issue vouchers to parents of students in private institutions with the necessity of helping my school and district maintain funding.  Even though several Supreme Court cases support school choice, I would hold myself accountable for the “academic success and personal well-being of every student” on my campus (NPBEA, 2018) and search for creative solutions to potential budgetary struggles.

 

References

Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)

Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985)

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022)

Durrani, Anayat. “What School Choice Is and How It Works.” US News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report, 14 Apr. 2023, www.usnews.com/education/k12/articles/what-school-choice-is-and-how-it-works.

Edison, Jaden, et al. “Texas House Unveils Its Private School Voucher Bill.” The Texas Tribune, 20 Feb. 2025, www.texastribune.org/2025/02/20/texas-house-school-vouchers/.

Greene, Peter. “Texas and the Conservative Pushback on School Vouchers.” Forbes, 18 Feb. 2025, www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2025/02/18/texas-and-the-conservative-pushback-on-school-vouchers/. Accessed 21 Feb. 2025.

Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Will Weigh in on Effort to Found Nation’s First Religious Charter School - SCOTUSblog.” SCOTUSblog, 24 Jan. 2025, www.scotusblog.com/2025/01/supreme-court-will-weigh-in-on-effort-to-found-nations-first-religious-charter-school/.

National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA). “National Educational Leadership Preparation (NELP) Program Recognition Standards - Building Level.” Open Educational Resources Collection, 1 Jan. 2018, irl.umsl.edu/oer/18/. Accessed 10 June 2024.

Preston, C. (2024, November 27). Lemon v. Kurtzman. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lemon-v-Kurtzman

Russo, Charles J. “Can a Charter School Be Religious? The Supreme Court Decision about St. Isidore, a Catholic School in Oklahoma, Could Redraw Lines around Church and State in Education.” Chron, Associated Press, 31 Jan. 2025, www.chron.com/news/article/can-a-charter-school-be-religious-the-supreme-20096114.php. Accessed 21 Feb. 2025.

U.S. Const. amend. I

Walker, Tim. ““No Accountability”: Vouchers Wreak Havoc on States | NEA.” Www.nea.org, 2 Feb. 2024, www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/no-accountability-vouchers-wreak-havoc-states.

Weiss, Debra Cassens. “Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Oklahoma Can Fund Catholic Charter School.” ABA Journal, 27 Jan. 2025, www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-oklahoma-can-fund-catholic-charter-school. Accessed 21 Feb. 2025.

Welner, K.G. (2024, June 20). Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zelman-v-Simmons-Harris

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002)

EDUC- 5153 Challenge #6

Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

My 3rd period class is designated as a “co-teach class”.  Normally in our district, that distinction means that half of the students in that class need extra support and accommodations in order to be successful in an English Language Arts classroom.  The other half of the class is supposed to be on-level students who do not need additional supports as determined by an IEP.  One general education teacher and one special education teacher co-teach the class.

In reality, we have 23 students in that class.  10 of those students are special education students, 7 students are Emergent Bilingual at the beginning or intermediate level, 4 are on behavior plans, one is Gifted and Talented, 3 have 504 plans, 12 are at risk, and 3 are truly on level.

To be honest, I have struggled to teach that class.  How do two teachers reach all of those needs?  And what about my 3 on-level students?  How do I make sure that they are also receiving the education that they deserve?  I have lost sleep over this class.  I have told anyone who would listen that I absolutely cannot co-teach again next year.  I have begged special education personnel for training, materials, encouragement, and anything else I could think to ask.  However, recently, things began to click.  My brain slowed down enough for me to observe what was working.  My co-teacher and I have actually been on the right track; it just didn’t make sense to me.  However, I revisited Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development this week, and I listened to a lecture about the importance of positive self-concept in the learning process.  

Then, I finally had that A-Ha! moment.

As unlikely as it sounds, my 3rd period class is actually learning.  We spend an almost inordinate amount of time on modeling and guided practice, but that means by the time we get to the independent work, the students understand the ideas, concepts, and themes of our activities.  Then, we gently nudge them toward the Zone of Proximal Development.  We slowly push them out of their comfort zones and toward the place where they feel a bit unsure.  However, by this time, we have already built up their self-concept, so they do not feel inept; they are just uncomfortable.  The teacher’s role in this process is to help build up the students’ self-concept in order to give them the confidence to thrive outside of their comfort zones. Teachers nudge students toward that discomfort, but teachers must also create a safe environment where students are not afraid to try.

"When we get too comfortable, we stop learning."

This discomfort my students felt is actually a very positive step in the learning process.  When students are too comfortable, they will not be able to learn as much as they would if they were challenged.  The hard part is finding the place where students are challenged and pushed to learn but where they do not shut down because the challenge is too difficult.
In addition to my co-teach class, I also teach advanced academics and a hybrid advanced academics/gifted and talented class.  Both sets of students need to be pushed; both sets of students can easily shut down if I push too much.

Recently, all of my students were required to write extended constructed responses (essays) for a district test.  All of my students showed growth, and I was very pleased with the construction of their compositions.  However, I had to force them out of their comfort zone in order to foster this progress.

When we wrote essays in December, all of my students did a decent job.  The essays were formulaic and met the bare minimum requirements.  I graded those essays very hard, and I spoke with the students individually about their essays and how they could improve.  This was quite frustrating for my students because they all felt like they did “fine”.  
We then wrote essays again in January.  For this essay, “fine” wasn’t good enough.  We used marker boards, and I approved each sentence of each student’s essay before they wrote it down on their planning page.  We discussed how to make each sentence better even though my advanced students thought that they should be able to just write whatever they wanted to.

I pushed them outside of their comfortable expectations of themselves, and we reached for excellence.  And they did such a good job!

The uneasiness that students feel during the learning process helps them not settle for doing an “okay” job.  That feeling goes along with acquiring new skills, new knowledge, and new abilities.  If we never step outside of our comfort zones, it is harder to grow and learn.

EDUC 5153- CHALLENGE #5

Explicit Instruction

The line between explicit instruction and direct instruction is sometimes blurred; however, there are distinct differences.  For instance, explicit instruction “demonstrates skills as wholes, and the learner acquires them by degrees rather than assembling them from subskills” (Joyce et al., p. 325).  Explicit instruction also involves segmenting complex skills, and “segmenting complex skills involves breaking down or chunking complex tasks into more manageable units, then teaching each of the individual tasks/units one by one, and finally integrating them so that students can more readily acquire the complex task” (Vaughn & Fletcher, 2021).   Although this method of instruction can help every student, students who need more help typically benefit more from explicit instruction.  It is a common practice in Tier II interventions, and it helps students who are struggling.

In simple terms, explicit instruction is “a purposeful way of overtly teaching students” (Vanderbilt University, 2024).  In explicit instruction, the teacher doesn’t assume that the student has any prior knowledge or skills.  Also in explicit instruction, students use metacognitive skills that contribute to their learning through a “high degree of consciousness” (Joyce et al., p. 324). In other words, “Termed metacognition, the essence is that when we are learning new practices, understanding the rationale and studying our application as we learn it facilitates the attainment of mastery” (Pressley & Brainerd, 1985, as cited in Joyce et al., p. 324).  Students are not merely thinking about the subject matter; they are thinking about learning the subject matter.  Therefore, in the  metacognition experienced during the explicit instruction of comprehension, students are thinking about, analyzing, and dissecting the “how” behind their comprehension.

I am a general education English teacher, and I teach a co-teach class with a special education teacher.  There are 23 students in that class, and 20 of those students receive some form of special services.  We use explicit instruction in that class even though it is technically an on-level class with an on-level curriculum.  Essentially, we teach the same things in the co-teach class as I teach in my on-level classes, but we use explicit instruction almost to the exclusion of all other methods.  For example, the last time we wrote thesis statements, we spent time on each word, dissecting the paragraphs into the basic building blocks of each sentence.  We made sure that every student understood the function of each word we used.  The goal was to be absolutely clear about the expectations, the steps involved, and the reasoning behind how we create thesis statements.

Direct Instruction

On the other hand, direct instruction involves breaking down skills " into subskills or

knowledge into segments” (Joyce et al., p. 325).  Subskills and segments are taught in order,

and the larger skills and concepts are obtained gradually.

In my regular, on-level classroom, I typically teach using direct instruction.  My Daily Learning Objective (DLO) is written on my whiteboard every day, and it is set up in an “I Do, We Do, You Do” format.  I teach my students a new concept by giving them a short lecture, and I demonstrate the new idea.  I then lead them in a guided practice before they work independently.  While my teaching strategies vary on a daily basis, the core format is almost always some iteration of direct instruction.  We build upon what we have already learned and what we are currently learning.

Role of Teachers in the Web 2.0 Era

With the rise of interactive web-based platforms and programs, some people may be

tempted to predict the future “uselessness” of classroom teachers; however, I firmly believe

that “interactive web-based content allow[s] for a more engaging and up-to-date learning

experience” (Zhu, 2025).  These opportunities do not take the place of teachers; instead,

they simply contribute to the educational environment and processes. The role of teachers

has changed, but human educators are still vitally important.

Teachers can now focus on different forms of classroom interactions with students.  One teacher said that with the growth of interactive-based learning,  “she could focus more on facilitating deeper discussions and project-based learning in the classroom” (Zhu, 2025) with the introduction of an AI program into her class.  Other teachers “reported higher job satisfaction as they could engage in more meaningful educational practices rather than repetitive instruction and grading” (Zhu, 2025).  

The role of the classroom teacher is not diminishing; rather, the classroom teacher’s primary responsibilities are simply changing to fit our digital age.  Teachers are no longer the sole dispensers of knowledge in their classrooms.  They are facilitators, guides, directors, and mentors.  Teachers must coach their students to be wise consumers of information and technologies, and they must teach them how to best leverage the enormous amounts of digital content to their advantage.  In short, “teachers are essential for curating and contextualizing the vast amount of information available, helping students navigate digital resources, and facilitating the development of digital literacy” (Zhu, 2025).

Regardless of what the naysayers claim, teachers are here to stay.

References

Joyce, Bruce, Marsha Weil, Emily Calhoun. (2015). Models of Teaching. Ninth Edition.

            New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Vanderbilt University. “What Is Explicit Instruction?” Vanderbilt University, 2024, my.vanderbilt.edu/spedteacherresources/what-is-explicit-instruction/.

Vaughn, Sharon, and Jack Fletcher. “Explicit Instruction as the Essential Tool for

            Executing the Science of Reading.” The Reading League Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, May 2021, p. 4, pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9004595/.

Zhu, Mila. Multimodal Instructional Strategies: Dances with Shackles in

            Learning Communities. Dubuque, IA, Kendall Hunt, 2025.

EDUC 5153- CHALLENGE #4

ICT (Informational Communication Technology) in My Classroom

Distance learning, asynchronous classes, and hybrid education have all flourished since the beginning of the global pandemic.  Students and teachers have access to unprecedented amounts of knowledge and countless technologies, and these technologies change the way we interact and learn.

During the 2020-2021 school year, I was assigned 6 hybrid classes.  In my junior high school, hybrid classes consisted of 15-25 students physically in the classroom with me and another 15-25 students online watching me and my screen through a Google Meet.  That year was exhausting physically, mentally, and emotionally; however, I was able to discover and use many new technologies.  I was on a constant search for software, programs, and strategies that would help me teach my students and connect with them online and in person.  

  

I ended up using interactive technology tools like Pear Deck, Nearpod, and Padlet on a daily basis.  These technologies helped me communicate with my online students and helped all of my students communicate with each other (whether they were in my classroom or at their homes).  They shared their screens regularly with the class, and we constantly did mental well checks.  

It was an emotional time, and socioemotional wellness was at the top of our list of priorities.  Small things like the Pear Deck Check-Ins helped me monitor the wellbeing of my students and watch for any warning signs of depression.

We were also able to use more classic forms of technology like Powerpoint and Google Slides.  Students made presentations to demonstrate their learning, and they shared those presentations with the class. Dr. Mila Zhu stresses the importance of public presentations in our global society, and she declares that “ICT equips students with the tools to craft compelling multimedia presentations, making their findings accessible to broader audiences” (Zhu, 2025).  By the end of that school year, my students were excelling at their multimedia presentations.

During this current school year, my class has started using Canva in order to create multimedia presentations that show off what they have learned. They are learning both the technology skills and the subject matter content  they need in order to be successful in our modern digital world.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Distance Learning

However, there are some disadvantages to distance learning.  As an English teacher, the first disadvantage that I have to combat is the lack of physical writing that can accompany distance learning.  Students do not want to write rough drafts and planning pages for essays.  They just want to type the paper and be done with it.  However, there is an abundance of research that supports the claim that handwriting activates the brain and improves recall.  It’s the “phenomenon of boosting memory by producing something tangible” (Hu, 2024). Physically taking notes regarding what they are reading actually helps students focus on what they are reading, and there is “widespread connectivity across many brain regions” when students write (Hu, 2024).

Another disadvantage is a sense of learned helplessness.  If a program doesn’t work or a computer shuts down unexpectedly, my students have a difficult time figuring out what to do.  They have to be prompted to problem solve, and they argue that there is really nothing they can do if the technology isn’t working.  I adamantly and actively work against this mindset, and I believe that students were more independent before technology was ubiquitous in our schools.  They use our campus technology assistant as a crutch, and they lack the confidence to try and fix things themselves.  Sadly, it seems as if students are growing in their abilities to use technology, but they are digressing in their independent learning abilities and their ability to take initiative.

Conversely, there are quite a few advantages to distance learning and the informational communication technologies that came along as a result.  In my classroom, it is easier for students to collaborate when they use technologies like shared Google Docs and shared Canva presentations.  In addition, jigsaw learning is simple and straightforward.  Absent students can make up work more easily, and they do not have to wait until their return to school before starting their make-up work.  Technology also increases communication between students and teachers.  I can email my students links, detention reminders, homework help, and anything else that will help promote a productive learning environment.  Parent communication is simplified as well, and I often copy parents and students on the same email messages.  

Overall Impression

Distance learning is here to stay, and as much as I would love to go back in time to the pre-pandemic years in education, I cannot deny the advantages that do exist as a result of distance learning and ICT.  Many of these tools existed before, but their acceptance and widespread use may be attributed to the pandemic and the need for distance education.

In my opinion, distance learning and educational technologies must be integrated with traditional methods of education like writing essays by hand and direct face-to-face communication.  When I combine the old and new ways in my classroom, I am contributing to the future success of my students in an ever-changing world.  

References

Hu, Charlotte. “Why Writing by Hand Is Better for Memory and Learning.” Scientific American, 21 Feb. 2024, www.scientificamerican.com /article/why-writing-by-hand-is-better-for-memory-and-learning/.

Zhu, Mila. Multimodal Instructional Strategies: Dances with Shackles in Learning Communities. Dubuque, IA, Kendall Hunt, 2025.

EDUC- 5153- CHALLENGE #3- Group Learning

PART 1:  My Experience With a Group Project

I love group projects if everyone in the group is as committed to the project as I am.  I think that collaboration adds another layer to the learning process that cannot be reproduced in a situation where everyone is working individually and independently.  

One of my favorite group learning experiences was creating a presentation with a team of educators for the Texas Education Agency (TEA).  I was a part of the first Teacher Leadership Fellowship (TLF) led by TEA, and one of our assignments for the fellowship was to create a presentation that represented the research and findings from our working group.  

My particular working group held focus groups with current classroom teachers, and our objective was to analyze how teachers really spend their time.  We also sought to discover what things “wasted” teacher time and what teachers thought we could do about the lack of time we all seem to have.  

We each held our own focus groups, and TEA divided our data into different groupings  for us.   We then divided the work; however, we helped each other along the way.   We coded the information,  created themes, and outlined our findings.  After we were certain of the wordings of our findings, we created recommendations.  This was after we had spent months and months researching the topic of teacher time.  

What Went Well

We were all dedicated to the project, so everyone worked very hard.  We all had assigned roles, and each of us understood what that role entailed.  We had the roles divided equally, so no one had too much to do.   This was also a topic about which we were all passionate!   However, the most important and positive aspect of this project might have been that it was going to be put to actual use in a real-world situation.  We were able to present our project to the Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency, and the information gathered was used to inform the Texas Legislature about necessary bill proposals.  

What Did Not Work

We did not have a designated leader of the group.  Toward the end, we did choose a spokesperson, and there was an unofficial leader, but there was no one actually designated to lead and keep us on track.  We were so excited about this project and the possible implications that we often found ourselves on a tangent.

Our objective was originally too broad; we ended up having two very distinct lines of inquiry, so we had to narrow the scope for our presentation.  We originally started off researching teacher time and how we could minimize the extra work and duties that take up so much of that time.  We then began to contemplate what a teacher time study would like and how we could practically create one.  Our final presentation ended up highlighting the time study and giving our recommendations for how to actually implement one.   We had research on teacher time, extra work, and teacher suggestions on how to reduce the workload, but we ultimately decided to stick with the time study for the presentation.

How Would I Improve a Similar Learning Experience for My Students?

The next time I assign a group project, I am going to assign students roles.  Each student will have a role, and they will be evaluated on their fulfillment of that role.  I will also make sure that the objective is clear and straightforward.  I will conduct frequent checks to make sure that students are staying on track.  Collaborating with a group generates ideas, but sometimes those ideas entice us to move our focus from the main goals of the project.

PART 2:  Social Values and Social Justice

I love that when we use the Role Play model in a classroom, we can encourage students to look at the world from a completely different perspective.  We can cultivate their social values and encourage them to see the world through the eyes of others, and the ability to see the world through the eyes of others is a formidable advantage in the quest for equity and social justice.  As educators, our instruction should include safe spaces for people to explore those perspectives.  

What Should be Done in Our Instruction?

As an ELA instructor, I need to provide literature from multiple perspectives and then allow students to share their thoughts, fears, options, and rebuttals.  I need to create an environment where students can be who they are, messy backgrounds and all.

  

Fishbowl Discussion/Debate 

I teach 7th grade English in Texas, and almost every 7th grader in our state reads The Outsiders.  It is a “rite of passage” novel that is essentially a rite of passage for junior high students.  The story of Ponyboy and Johnny is told to countless 12- and 13-year-olds every year.  The beautiful themes range from loyalty to socioeconomic struggles to loss of childhood innocence.  These are subjects that matter to all of us; however, junior high is the time where these issues become more blatant and apparent.  

A Fishbowl Discussion on The Outsiders would give the entire class the opportunity to explore the messages found in the novel, and in an ideal situation, the questions would be generated by the students themselves.  After reading the novel in its entirety, students would create questions based on previous class discussions, theme study, and sentence stems that could lead them to use their higher order thinking skills.

However, for the sake of illustration, these are discussion questions that could prove effective:

Why does the novel’s depiction of adolescents still ring true today? 

Why is the battle between the social classes useless? 

I would arrange the majority of the desks in my room around the outside walls.  8 desks would be placed in the middle of the room.  The middle desks would be reserved for the speakers, and they would be the first ones to address our topic.  Since my classes tend to need constant movement and change in order to stay fully engaged, we would rotate the speakers every 8 minutes.  This would give us 4 rotations, and that would allow for even my largest classes to participate as both speakers and observers.  The first 10 minutes of class would be focused on preparation, and the last 10 minutes would be a time of debriefing.  

Each student would have a chance to be a speaker and an observer.  In order to have everyone participate, this activity would be for a grade.  Any student who wished to not speak out loud in the inner circle would be allowed to email questions to a designated student.  The designated student could verbalize the questions or answers.  (This is necessary in my classes that contain students who are at various levels of English proficiency or anxiety.  Also, this would not be a permanent solution. Eventually, all students would be encouraged to speak up and participate.)

Students would assess themselves during the fishbowl activity using a rubric like this one provided by RHS Content Literacies:

Students would be graded on asking questions, answering questions, and taking notes.  A worksheet for notetaking will be given to each student; this worksheet will need to be completed by the end of the class period.  The worksheet would resemble this excerpt from the English Department of the University of Washington:

Clear guidelines, sentence stems, and an encouraging environment should help all students feel safe and confident enough to be actively engaged in this activity.